Leela Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Leela Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent 1.

The date when the judgment is reserved 13.05.2026 2.

The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.05.2026 3.

The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.05.2026 4.

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5.

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. A.S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.210, dated 23.11.2024, registered under Sections 140, 140(1), 103, 238, 3(5) and 61(2) of the BNS, at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, 2.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant - Parhlad Singh on 23.11.2024, alleging

-2that his brother Balvir Singh used to do mason work. In the morning of 18.11.2024, he along with his cousin Surjit Singh had gone for his work. He had left his work place on receipt of some phone call at about 09:30 AM and did not come back. His phone was going switched off. They had made search for him but could not find him. They had also lodged a missing report. By alleging that Sukhveer Kaur, wife of the victim Balvir Singh, and Gurpreet Kaur might have hand in the abduction/missing of the victim, the complainant prayed for taking action against them. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Sukhveer Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur were apprehended on the same day. Offence under Section 140(1) of BNS, 2023 was added.

3.

As per the further allegations, a supplementary statement was recorded by the complainant, on the basis of which, the petitioner along with co-accused Sukhveer Kaur, Gurpreet Kaur, Veerpal Kaur and Kulwinder Singh were nominated as accused. Offences under Sections 103, 238 and 61(2) of the BNS were added. Accused Gurpreet Kaur was arrested. On interrogation, she suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that she had called the victim at her house on 18.11.2024, had given the victim sedative pills mixed in tea, thereby making him unconscious and then along with coaccused Veerpal Kaur had killed him and had buried his dead body by digging a pit in her house. She further disclosed that the present petitioner, who is her father was also told about the entire incident subsequently and with his assistance, they had taken out dead body of the victim from the pit and had thrown the same behind the house of accused Veerpal Kaur and then the same was again buried in another pit. On the basis of her disclosure

-3statement, the dead body of the victim was got exhumed in the presence of the Naib Tehsildar concerned and Assistant Forensic Officer and was identified by the complainant to be the dead body of the victim. The petitioner was arrested on 25.11.2024. He too suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the act of throwing the dead body of the victim outside the house of Veerpal Kaur and then burying the same in a pit dug therein. Investigation now stands completed.

4.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded without any basis as he was not the eye witness to the occurrence. The disclosure statement of the co-accused cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. Neither the act of killing the victim nor any injury to him, has been attributed to the petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he had helped the main accused in causing disappearance of dead body of the victim by concealing it in a pit dug outside the house of co-accused Veerpal Kaur. He is in custody since long. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to

-4have shifted the dead body of the victim from the house of his daughter i.e. co-accused Gurpreet Kaur via the street on a bicycle and to have thrown the same outside the wall of house of another co-accused Veerpal Kaur, wherein it was buried after digging a pit. The petitioner, while fully knowing that his daughter Gurpreet Kaur had killed the victim, did not disclose this fact to the police. Rather, he is alleged to have facilitated causing disappearance of evidence of offence of murder by his daughter obviously with the intention of screening her from legal punishment.

Though, the role attributed to the petitioner is not of causing homicidal death of the victim and is of a facilitator in the purported act of concealment of dead body of the victim, which is distinct and remote offence from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, however, still the allegations against him are quite serious in nature. The trial has commenced. At this stage, it cannot be stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. Taking into consideration the role attributed to the petitioner and the gravity of the allegations as levelled against him, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8.

It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. 9.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA) 18.05.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No